Red Cross-Appellant Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Cho Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Incheon Airport Head

October 11, 2012

1. On October 6, 2011, the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff is revoked without paying the individual consumption tax.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 2010, the Plaintiff exported an international exhibition held in Hong Kong on September 9, 2010 (the date before being amended by Act No. 11120, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) and September 14, 2010 under the name “Jewer Gold” (635, Sept. 25, 2010), but subsequently re-imported it on September 25, 2010 (the import declaration number 1190-10-094424U) and received an application for exemption from customs duties under Article 14(1)2 of the former Individual Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11150, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 19(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 19(1)14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21510, Apr. 1, 20197, 2014). 201).

B. On February 201, 201, the Defendant: (a) pursuant to the Board of Audit and Inspection’s pointed out that “The goods returned to a manufacturing place or taken out of a bonded area after participating in an overseas exhibition, etc. subject to the individual consumption tax” are subject to the traffic, energy and environment tax; (b) pursuant to the Board of Audit and Inspection’s pointed out that the said imported goods are subject to the imposition of the traffic, energy and environment tax if the goods are not carried out without payment of taxes before the import declaration is accepted; and (c) subject to the imposition of the traffic, energy and environment tax (hereinafter “instant goods”); and (d) on May 11, 201, the Defendant imposed individual consumption tax on the Plaintiff KRW 89,03,250, education tax, 26,70,970, additional tax KRW 31,05,000, total amount of KRW 145,759

C. On May 12, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval on the shipment without paying the individual consumption tax pursuant to Article 112(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act. On October 6, 2011, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for approval on the shipment without paying the individual consumption tax, on the ground that “the removal without paying the tax shall not be filed within five days from the date of receipt of a notice of payment pursuant to Article 112(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, but shall be filed from the date of import declaration to the date of acceptance of the import declaration pursuant to Article 19(1) of

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 20, 201 before being notified of the instant disposition, which was dismissed on March 8, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) According to Article 14 of the Individual Consumption Tax Act, the pertinent goods are not subject to the imposition of the individual consumption tax, and the individual consumption tax should be reduced or exempted (the Plaintiff asserts that Article 19(1) of the Individual Consumption Tax Act is not necessary to obtain the reduction of and exemption from the individual consumption tax, but merely a procedural example provision).

Before the registration of the Board of Audit and Inspection, if exported for foreign display is confirmed to be the same goods, there was a practice of approval without payment of tax, without submitting an application for approval for taking out without payment of tax.

Article 4(1) of the former Customs Act applies first to the procedures for imposing and collecting internal taxes imposed and collected by the head of the relevant customs office on May 12, 201, and the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption is lawful under Article 39(2) of the former Customs Act and Article 112(2)1 of the former Customs Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the first argument of the Plaintiff

Article 14(1) of the former Individual Consumption Tax Act provides that the individual consumption tax shall not be levied on the goods when they are returned to or taken out from a manufacturing place or a bonded area, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a person who intends to take the goods out of a selling place, manufacturing place, or storage place, or take them out of a bonded area, shall submit an application for taking them out from the head of the competent tax office or customs office at the time of taking them out (in cases of imported goods, from the time of filing an import declaration until the date of

According to the above law and the Enforcement Decree, even in the case of re-importing to return the goods to a domestic manufacturing place after displaying them in a foreign exhibition like the goods of this case, the individual consumption tax shall not be deemed exempted, and according to the delegation of the above law, the application for carrying out without paying the tax shall be exempted from the individual consumption tax as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, the plaintiff

D. Judgment on the second argument of the Plaintiff

In light of the evidence Nos. 10 and 11 (including the provisional number), it is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of the non-party witness alone by the non-party witness had a practice as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion as to this

• Judgment on the third argument of the Plaintiff

Article 39(1) of the former Customs Act provides for cases where the head of a customs office imposes and collects customs duties. Article 39(2) of the same Act provides for cases where the head of a customs office becomes aware of the shortage of amount of customs duties already collected due to erroneous application, etc. for reduction or exemption of customs duties. Article 39(3) of the same Act provides that when the head of a customs office wishes to collect customs duties pursuant to Articles 1 and 39(2) of the former Customs Act, the duty payment notice shall be served on the person liable for duty payment. In full view of the purport of the above provision, it means that the amount of shortage of customs duties shall be collected. Article 4(1) of the former Customs Act provides that an application for reduction or exemption of customs duties, such as internal taxes imposed and collected by the head of a customs office, individual consumption tax, and individual consumption tax imposed and collected by the head of a customs office, and Article 39(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that an application for reduction or exemption of customs duties, etc. shall take precedence over the latter provision, Article 9(3) of the former Customs Act.

Although the Defendant asserts that an application for reduction or exemption cannot be made after the import declaration was accepted because it did not have a separate procedure for application for reduction or exemption after the import declaration was accepted under the former Individual Consumption Tax Act, if it is interpreted that the application for reduction or exemption cannot be made after the import declaration was accepted, it is in conflict with the enforcement decree of the former Customs Act that the application of the provisions of the former Customs Act should be made by wire in accordance with Article 4(1) of the former Customs Act. Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted (On the other hand, the Defendant cited Supreme Court Decision 8Nu8593 Decided May 9, 1989 on the basis of the argument, but the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act on application for reduction or exemption after notice of payment were amended by Presidential Decree No. 14990 on May 4, 1996, which came into force on July 1, 196, and the above Supreme Court decision was without the above provisions).

In this case, the Plaintiff submitted an application to the Defendant for approval of carrying-out without paying individual consumption tax, which is an application for reduction of and exemption from individual consumption tax, on May 12, 201, after receiving a notice of payment of individual consumption tax, etc. on May 11, 2011, within five days thereafter, and the Plaintiff submitted an application for approval of carrying-out without paying individual consumption tax to the Defendant on May 12, 201. There is no dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff’s application for approval of carrying-out without paying the tax is legitimate. The Defendant’s application for approval of carrying-out without paying the tax can only be filed from the time of import declaration to the time of receiving the import declaration pursuant to Article 112(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Individual Consumption Tax Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges anti-Japanese (Presiding Justice) Kim Young-young